Honey, Whatchu Waiting For?

Amy - she/her - adult - sfw

[heathersproship]

Hi, I’m Amy! Nice to meetcha! I go by she/her, I’m queer, I’m an adult, I love Heathers, and I’m proship! I’ll do my best to tag accordingly, ask if needed!

❤ SALS (Ship And Let Ship) and YKINMKATO (Your Kink Is Not My Kink And That’s Okay, or Kinktomato)

💛 fiction does affect reality but NOT 1:1

💚 ignoring/blocking >>> interacting/harassing

💙 consuming/liking something in fic ≠ IRL morals. If that were the case, English class would be a lot different than it actually is. We’d be reading Green Eggs and Ham and not The Catcher in the Rye.

❤️💛💚💙

DNI if:

ableist • anti-agere • antiship/antishipper • ALM/Back The Blue/Blue Lives Matter/pro-cop • pro-ana/bulimia/ED/thinspo • you condone incest/rape/etc IRL • LGBTQIA+phobic/ace-exclusionist • minors* • MAP/NoMAP • NSFW • pro-life • racist • radfems • sexist • SW/TERF • Trump supporter

*anti-leaning minors, fuck off

You can’t sit with us! No one wants to play your reindeer games!

❤️💛💚💙

It’s perfectly fine to have whatever ships you have because it’s entirely possible to keep what you like and what you are separate. Minors (esp <16) in the (rated R) Heathers fandom is concerning, but hardly the worst thing in the world.

Happy Pride Month!

xx

[heathersproship]

Happy pride month!

Being ace ≠ being aro.

Sometimes they overlap. Sometimes they don’t. Regardless of whether you’re both or either-or, the fact remains: they’re not the same thing.

One indicates as lack of sexual attraction, and how much depends on the person. That doesn’t mean they can’t fuck, masturbate, or even enjoy smut.

One indicates a lack of romantic interest, and how much depends on the person. That doesn’t mean they can’t be in relationships.

Jughead being lauded lauded as ace representation in the Archie comics doesn’t mean he can’t be in a romantic relationship in Riverdale. He can even fuck and still be considered ace. Likewise, Octavia from Helluva Boss can also be ace and still be in a relationship. It’s not ““illegal”” to ship either of these fictional characters in general, but pulling the ace card in the argument isn’t the W you think it is (frankly it just shows you don’t know what words mean).

Being asexual does not mean being aromantic. Words have meanings. Meanings have value. And those meanings don’t change just because some terminally online rando conflates them for ease. Sorry not sorry, that’s just the truth of the matter.

I’m ace. I’m not aro. I’m in love with my partner, who is also ace. She likes smut; my eyes glaze over the second I see it coming. It’s been 12 years and we’re still getting on splendidly.

[starberry-cupcake]

you're allowed to like media without trying to justify it by making it seem like it's the wokest thing that's ever existed, a paragon of representation and the most morally sound piece of media that has ever lived

[willgrahamscock]

Thought crimes of course aren’t real but uh. We know those aren’t just thoughts anymore once you’ve posted them publicly, yeah?

Then they’re just crimes.

sure, fictional crimes since nothing happened and no one was hurt. should we put the fictional handcuffs on? "sorry, you wrote about murder which is illegal, go spend 20 years in mind jail"

[lustcannibalism]

y'all make so much more fuss about shit in fanfiction than crimes in real life

[biglawbear]

Agatha Christie is serving 100,000 consecutive life sentences for all the murders

[max1461]

Disgust has absolutely no ethical weight. If you are basing your ethical positions on the emotion of disgust you should stop, it is entirely unjustified and leads to a huge amount of harm.

[word-for-today]

Word for today: wisdom of repugnance

The logical fallacy that because something disgusts you it must be bad

[obscenicon-deactivated20231123]

this is probably the funniest example of a tumblr user simply not reading the post theyre reblogging at all

[steelblue8]

Reblog if you are a freak who is justifying their gross actions

[lilcowzia]

why is it that ppl hear "fetish" and immediately think "devoid of morals" like ur genuinely not making sense. ppl dont actually become inhuman and beast-like when theyre turned on, thats something we are told bc it aligns with christian patriarcal values, u know that right? desire isnt actually bad. it doesnt make you evil, or incapable of having/respecting boundaries

[lilcowzia]

i got a response to this abt how men get horny and "lose their minds" and "causes" them to behave vile. i rlly rlly neeeeed ppl to understand that men behaving inappropriately when turned on is something they are *choosing* to do, and when you equate that to human nature you are enabling them and diminishing the seriousness of that choice

[bigfatbitchdotcom]

Endlessly diabolical how you can't say words like rape and suicide uncensored without either being criticised by idiots or punished by conglomerates.

[bigfatbitchdotcom]

It's not r*pe, it's rape. It's not su*cide, it's suicide. Not unalive, dead. The backbone needs to be reintroduced en masse because softening the blow of these concepts with advertising language does absolutely nothing but allow people unaffected by them to feel not even a sting of what they can do, prompting inaction.

[bigfatbitchdotcom]

And it's been proven that on certain websites, you don't even face a repercussion for using the words as they are. People just started censoring themselves because they feared the potential lack of views and likes and followers which is so nasty itself.

[its-the-blob]

I attended an anti-suicide seminar in college. One of the big takeaways from it was that stigmatizing suicide increases the rate of suicide, because people who are feeling suicidal feel like they can't ask for help. Every time I see babytalk garbage like 'unalive', I think of that.

[ralfmaximus]

Use the real words. Words have power, and they matter.

[shaydh]

"why did you write that"

my fetish

my friend's fetish

not my fetish but it fits in the story so i threw it in there as a treat. you're welcome.

[ckret2]

4. the character's fetish and i'm committed to portraying them with absolute accuracy

[tookas-have-teeth]

Y’all “critical thinking” does not equal “criticism”.

[tookas-have-teeth]

I am very tired of saying positive things about characters and getting told I need to do some critical thinking (so that I’ll see the characters are actually bad). No. That’s not how that works. I already did some critical thinking and came to the conclusions that these characters are wonderful. Criticism or straight up character bashing is not more enlightened and is not how critical thinking works. “Critical thinking” is not “thinking about all the bad or problematic aspects of something.” It’s looking objectively at evidence, looking at context, recognizing and examining personal biases and assumptions, considering what assumptions and biases are being used in a given argument by other people, etc. Sometimes this process brings up criticisms, yes, but sometimes it also leads to the conclusion that something is actually good despite it being made out to be bad. 

[athingofvikings]

[scriptmedic]

Critical Thinking means making room for nuance and shades of gray. Not criticize stuff I don't like.

Also, it's okay to find something you absolutely detest and still recognize the craft and genius in it.

[fycartoonycrimegames]

I 'unno, i read a lot of the angry responses to the sarah z tweet, and i just think if your experiences with minors harrassing you are *that* bad, maybe it's time to just walk away and do something else with your time? Like, i would hope nobody's identity is *that* closely tied to the fandoms theyre in that they cant just leave if things are genuinely getting toxic?

It sounds like some people are just outgrowing fandom and are having a hard time admitting that to themselves--its normal! Its normal to grow less interested in this stuff as you mature--fandom is stupid!

That doesnt mean you cant still enjoy the atuff you were in a fandom for, just maybe stay away from other fans! Sly cooper is my favorite videogame series and i *loathe* its fans etc--but i just dont go on the tag and pick fights with the creepier people anymore!

Thats a pretty normal response to toxic media communities, imo? What else can yeh do?

[fycartoonycrimegames]

Not super interested in responding to every single person in the reblogs, but i read the responses and i still agree with what i said. You can enjoy a piece of media without engaging with the fandom surrounding said media, and this is in fact the superior way to go about it, every single time.

[fycartoonycrimegames]

I went back and checked the tags on the original post--the only way the people who are angry about this couldve even found out this post existed is if they went on the sarah z tag specifically looking for a fight (or the "fandom discourse" tag ig) or if they reblogged from someone else who found the post under those circumstances. So, uh, actually yeah, get a life.

[olderthannetfic]

This is a really interesting meta take on how tumblr usage works.

The vast majority of what I read on tumblr, I read in a tag. I don’t really look at my dash except when I’m opening the site to check my messages. I primarily find things through tags. That’s not specific to Sarah Z or indicative of my mood: it’s just a common way to browse tumblr.

[elfwreck]

“i would hope nobody’s identity is *that* closely tied to the fandoms theyre in that they cant just leave if things are genuinely getting toxic?”

Is insulting and dismissive as hell.

“People should not deeply care about the things that inspire them and bring them joy. They should not have emotions that tie to their opinions. They should not mind if someone attacks them for having interests, and they should be willing to drop those interests - or at least drop any social connections related to those interests - if someone else harasses them about it.”

HOW DARE PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THINGS ENOUGH THAT IT MAKES THEM UPSET WHEN STRANGERS CALL THEM EVIL FOR WHAT THEY LIKE.

“Thats a pretty normal response to toxic media communities, imo? What else can yeh do?”

The normal response to toxic communities is to take action against them - either to change them by social influence, or appeal to an authority to shut them down. It’s not to say “well, haters gonna hate, so you might as well let them own the public side of fandom.” 

“So, uh, actually yeah, get a life.”

More victim-blaming. “Fandom isn’t actually your LIFE just because you love it and pour hours into it and let it be your gateway to learning new skills and a network of social connections. If you’re being hurt, it’s because you keep putting yourself in a dangerous place.”

y’know what? This looks like misogyny.

If boys playing sports mention that their local team is toxic and abusive and might be criminal, people don’t tell them, “just fucking walk away. You’re probably not going to be a pro so it’s just a hobby. Don’t go looking for ways to feel insulted, and if you can’t handle being attacked, you probably should find a different hobby. You can enjoy watching it on TV; you don’t have to actually participate to be part of Sports Fandom.” 

Fandom toxicity doesn’t happen out of nowhere. It’s not a force of nature that randomly harms some people. It’s done by people who make choices - and it’s not fair to their direct targets nor the rest of the community to say, “well, if someone decided to be an abuser, you can’t do anything about it but leave. Exposing yourself to abuse means it’s your fault.” 

[star-anise]

“I just want us to have a conversation about why people find problematic fic appealing!” says someone who will definitely shut that conversation down the MOMENT anyone says anything they disagree with.

“I just want you to think through the implications!” says the person who flips the fuck out the moment you bring scientific research on what the implications are to the table.

I’m so sick of people going “waaaaaaah we just want to have a conversaaaaaation” when they don’t want to have a conversation, they just want a bigger soapbox to shout their ideas and denounce all others from.

So much of my LIFE is seriously examining the effect narratives and art have on people but fucking nobody who says “well can’t we talk about how fiction affects reality” cares about what I have to say.

[captainlordauditor]

“I just think you should consider the implications,” says the person not considering the implications of their own words

[star-anise]

“You are responsible for the consequences of your fiction,” says someone who absolutely does not care about the consequences of their real-life behaviour.

[riptidemonzarc]

You are free to stop reading, to stop watching, to stop listening. You’re free to stop the *instant* something makes you uncomfortable, or when you get bored, or when you get scared, or when you get turned on, or when you get seized by awkwardness so hard it makes you fold over and groan in pain, or just because you don’t feel like consuming a given piece of media any longer.

You are free, in short, to keep yourself from consuming anything at all, for any reason, You’re not free to keep other people from consuming their own media. You’re not free to save someone else from consuming media that upsets *them*, much less from media that upsets *you*.

It’s not rocket science.

[fred-erick-frankenstein]

⬆️

[corvidkusnos]

tbh I think you completely missed the point, lmao.

Both the writer and the consumer have to take responsibility.

Consumers need to take responsibility of the media they intake and not interact with things that have warnings for things they don’t like. That much is true.

But the writer also needs to take responsibility in their writing, too. Writing sensitive themes aren’t inherently bad, but how the writer portrays and uses those themes is what’s important, not just the mere existence of those themes in literature.

The entire argument is about whether those themes are romanticised/handled insensitively and how they have very real effects in real life. Writing sensitive themes isn’t inherently the writer condoning those themes, but you’d be surprised how many writers do condone those themes or take an unhealthy amount of joy in depicting those themes. 

Literature isn’t suddenly exempt from all consequence when we hold every other form of media to a moral standard. 

It’s not a call for censorship and no one’s allowed to explore dark themes in their writing, but a call for people who write those themes in an offensive way to take responsibility and deal with the consequences.

Content creators need to take responsibility for the content they produce just as much as the consumer needs to take responsibility for what they choose to consume. It’s not a one-sided thing. Fiction doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

[star-anise]

Please tell me

What are the appropriate consequences for artists who offensively depict sensitive themes? What appropriate consequences are visited on the creators of popular works that glamorize violence, like Joker, or eroticize sexual violence, like Game of Thrones?

What are the consequences of insensitive depiction? What provable harms come from fiction that insensitively depicts such things?

How do you tell which works are “romanticized” and “glamorized” and which are “sensitive” depictions? What are your criteria? Is it a test many different people could apply to a work of art and all come to the same conclusion on? Is it a test you could program a computer to apply?

If the focus is on how these themes are portrayed–that is, the approach each individual artist takes when portraying them–why are entire swathes of subject matter, like ships, condemned, and not the individual fanworks that take particular approaches to them?

Citing your sources would be appreciated.

[doomhamster]

“Oh but you don’t understand, we only want to make sure things are portrayed PROPERLY” says the person who has no standards for what “properly” is because we all know a Bad Exploitative Romanticizing Harmful Version when we see it, RIGHT?!

[findingfeather]

Also:

What effect on whether or not a portrayal is viewed as “sensitive” or “acceptable” vs “harmful” and “glamorized” will the identity and experiences of the creator have?

How will you determine this relationship?

How will you account for the harm of coercive disclosure and/or erasure of those unwilling to publicly disclose sensitive areas of their lives and experiences, or unable to do so without significant personal harm? 

Do you think you would be able to determine who does and does not have the “right”, based on personal experience/ownership of events/identity/etc to create a particular portrayal without such disclosure? How will you be determining/testing this ability?

What does this determination do to the concept of “Death of the Author” and how it is applied to authorial intent vs results and outcomes?

How will you keep the concepts of “sensitive/appropriate” vs “romanticized/glamourized” from being used by those in social, cultural and/or political power to silence content that they do not like?

Have you researched how these concepts have been used to do exact that in the past? What cases can you give as examples? What measures will be taken in order to prevent the same thing from happening?

If you are relying on the difference between formal state sponsored censorship and mere social shunning/opprobrium, what research have you done into the effects of these forces on minority groups, particularly sexual and religious minority groups, and their artistic expressions? What measures will be taken to be certain that this case is different? How will those be implemented?

Citations still appreciated.

[certainlyanotp-deactivated20230]

This, so hard.

I am not interested, now or ever, in hearing about why [thing I like/wrote] is “problematic.” I am not interested in “acknowledging” anything, or in “opening a dialogue” in which you get to shit on the thing I like/wrote, and I get to sit there feeling progressively shittier. Fuck the fuck off. Mind your own fucking business. Go create something of your own instead of tearing other people’s creations down.

[mercutial]

I mean, I don’t have a standard of how we should judge fiction for portraying things in a problematic light, nor do I think that authors of fiction with problematic portrayals should face “consequences”… but I think it’s fair to want people to be responsible about sensitive themes. Fiction does shape people’s perceptions of reality - that’s why we want more representation of minorities in fiction, for instance.

I think just having a disclaimer - “This is all fantasy and I DO NOT think any of this is healthy irl” - is enough in most cases, tbh. Which I see a lot of authors do. But while I’d like them to add disclaimers and such, I don’t know about making people face “consequences” for not doing so.

Maybe I’m missing some part of the discussion? Are people calling for like, legal consequences for authors of fiction that glorify problematic issues? (If it’s something like that, I think that’s pretty dumb.) What is actually being argued here?

[star-anise]

Yeah, you’re missing something. There’s a ton of bullshit going around.

People who find themselves accused of having handled a subject insensitively (and the bar is low, like, “You wrote ship about children from canon being grown up and experiencing romance as adults, you’re glorifying pedophilia because you interpreted children as sexual”) are subjected to harassment campaigns, suicide baiting, being smeared to everyone who interacts with them as “a pedophile”, and being outed as LGBTQ+ (and “a pedophile”) to families and workplaces.

Like I said, I do believe in talking about the ethics of art and representation. But the conversation is being drowned out by the hunting parties trumpeting “THIS SHIP GLORIFIES PEDOPHILIA” all the ding dang time.

[msfbgraves]

Excellent points all around!

And look, I fell in the “conversation” trap on this website exactly once. Somebody clamoured to want to know, ‘seriously, because I just can’t see it!’ why anyone would have a different opinion. When stating mine, as thoughtfully and respectfully as I could, I got back: ‘you are a Terrible Person and People Like you are Terrible People and this is why…’ without responding to any of my points while gleefully putting words in my mouth.

People bothering other people about responsibility in storytelling in fandom rarely contact writers of mainstream fiction to do the same. Are they contacting the writers of Joker about ableism? Bryan Singer about killing off his only Black character in X-Men in a completely nonsensical way? Criminal Minds? Are they discussing Golding or Philip Roth? Saw movies and other torture porn? Seldom. Very seldom. It’s usually fic writers, a very marginalised group of storytellers they can harass.

Also, as we can see in JoKe Rowling’s case im Harper’s Bazaar it’s always people who have been criticised for spouting very harmful and scientifically false opinions who call for an ‘open debate’. Really, it’s code for 'I want to insult whomever I wish without criticism.’ Because nobody is stopping them, indeed, from voicing their opinions and insulting whomever they wish. What they are doing is either ignoring them or pushing back. Which is exactly what an open debate is for, but OK. People who know they will be criticised, or far more likely, otherwise won’t be listened to, especially on this site, 'only want to have a conversation’. Because that is what they are owed, they think. But they’re not. A conversation requires two willing participants and a willingness to listen on both sides. You can want to have a conversation all you want, but you can only request one. Nobody is owed a conversation, especially when there is a very good chance that the politedness demanded is not granted in turn. If it were only about getting to understand another’s viewpoint, you wouldn’t need a conversation. You could look these things up. But if you want an extra opportunity to talk and be listened to, you need a conversation. Especially if you want to abuse the other person to their face and then shame them for refusing to submit to that.

So if people 'Only want to have a conversation’, ask them why. Better still, ignore them. Don’t give them an opening. They may pout, sure, but that still looks weak, so they might not even do that, and you can live your life in peace.

[polybatcest]

it's so funny to me when i see anti-batcesters complaining like "ugh i hate when i find a really good batfam fic on AO3 but then i check the author's other works and they've written batcest" like yeah bestie it's almost like a lot of people who ship batcest have a really nuanced & thorough understanding of the characters and themes here

[polybatcest]

also in general it's always gonna be crazy to me that there are people who have decided if an author has ever written anything taboo then anything else theyve ever written is also morally bankrupt by association, even stuff that is by itself totally vanilla. which imo is just an extension of the fandom purity culture belief that associating with someone who has done something wrong is just as bad as doing something wrong yourself. anyway totally unrelated did yall know that a big belief in fundamentalist christianity is that if you allow yourself to associate with sinful people even if you were not originally sinful yourself you will inevitably fall into sin because just knowing that person will taint you. just something im thinking about as i write this post

[polybatcest]

like i wanna be clear that the intended point of many of these posts ive seen of this ilk is not "ah man i read a fic by an author i really liked but none of their other fics are about stuff i'm interested in reading" (fair, has happened to me). the point is "ugh now i can never read that fic again even though i enjoyed it bc i found out the author is Morally Evil according to the standards of the teenagers i know on tumblr who constantly threaten everyone around them with social ostracization" (insane take, stop hanging out with those people).

[pro-sipper]

Therapy according to antis

Therapist: What seems to be the problem? Patient: I had a bad thought Therapist: That makes you a bad person Therapist: *pushes the red button on the bottom of their desk that calls the police to have patient immediately thrown in jail* Therapist: You have a $25 co-pay

And if you have any different experience, your therapist is corrupt or you're just outright lying

[dove-killer]

I love this fucking website. I'm never leaving Tumblr. You're all so fucking funny. I'm serious. I'd rather die than not see this kind of shit on my dash.

[h4nifah]

I hate when people act like there’s an age limit on fun, excitement, whimsy, silliness, new experiences, finding love, making mistakes, or literally doing anything other than being an NPC drone who has a corporate job and 2.4 kids like sorry you’re a boring bitch but some people continue to live life beyond the age of 30

[kuromi-hoemie]

hey um. so sorry to tell you this, but op of that post plays toys kinda weird. yeah you should just block them, that's not how normal people play with toys

[kuromi-hoemie]

this is what shipping discourse sounds like to me

[darthlenaplant]

[sticksandstans]

the rise of conservatism and gen z puritanism while still simultaneously trying to be hip and woke is so annoying because you have these people saying "match my freak" and then they get mad at ageplay and petplay and cnc and somno and anything raunchier than a pair of fuzzy handcuffs. you're not a "freak" if you think having a fetish is synonymous with being evil

[self-loving-vampire]

Some of them literally seem to think having the correct kinks and avoiding the "problematic" ones is a form of activism.